In comments responding to “The Church’s War Against Genetic Intelligence” people are still finding it impossible to see that I am talking about TESTABLE intelligence, the stuff Orientals and Jews are so good at.
Going through this for the unpteenth time on Stormfront, in the middle of a reply, a very important point hit me.
Here is the exchange. The IMPORTANT point is in the last part of my reply below:
Very true, but not my point.
Please realize that I am very aware of hte difference between creativity, constructive ability and TESTABLE intelligence.
All we are talking about when someone praises Orientals and Jews is TESTABLE intelligence. TESTABLE intelligence, literacy and so forth, was exactly what the church looked for when it made a eunuch out of any boy who showed special reading ability.
A child who was good at reading was “for the church,” and therefore had chastity pushed on him.
All I say is a matter of simple logic. This breeding program pushed down the TESTABLE intelligence that makes IQ nuts say Orientalsd nad Jews are master races.
In, fact, you have hit on exactly the point that kept this from being a total disaster. The church may have tried to make the kids who showed testable talents into eunuchs, but it did NOT get all the ones who didn’t SHOW their creativity and productivity by a special talent for reading, etc.
IN FACT, YOU JUST MADE ME THINK OF SOMETHING:
The genes that survived the thousand years of church-sponsored dysgenics wold be precisely those of creative, brilliant people who did NOT show an obvious special talent in TESTABLE areas or in reading and writing.
That would mean that a large of our treasuryof good genes are in the classes of our people who are brilliant but don’t show it in an obvious way.
Which may be why I have aleays been puzzled at how people worshipped professors and I thought so much of blue-collar people.
We have all noticed that the brains and common sense are not in the professors.
There may be a whole story in that.
\[QUOTE=Ibere]Just because a person can’t read or write doesn’t mean that he is not intelligent. There are a lot of great men in history that couldn’t do either. There are a lot of people with B.S. and P.H.D.’s who don’t have enough sense to come in from the rain. Just my opinion.[/QUOTE]
#1 by Peter on 04/27/2006 - 3:03 pm
Do you really think that even the “testable IQs” that are marketed today are valid measures by race?
Do you really think that a psychologist who discovered that Orientals or Jews had much lower IQs than whites would be given much press?
In college, I had a Psych professor who did tell the truth — quietly. She found real, valid test results and displayed them on an overhead in class. She put the results up as just one display in a series of overheads. It was part of a group of overheads that she said we didn’t need to take notes on if we didn’t want to, that they wouldn’t be on the test, and that they were just for our own information. She had done this previously with more innocuous overheads, so we were familiar with the routine. She left up the overhead of the test results showing lower IQs for Orientals and Jews only briefly. But she did scan the class to see who had noticed. I did.
I stayed after class and told her thanks for the overheads, smiled and left. She got great evals from the class. I got a good grade.
#2 by kane on 04/27/2006 - 3:05 pm
Intelligence in actuality is so complex that nothing can accurately test it in every dimension.
White people clearly think in a way which is unique from Asians which is unique from Blacks. I don’t need to know better. I just need to know whites are distinguishable. I don’t need to justify white survival.
#3 by LibAnon on 04/27/2006 - 4:36 pm
Bob, you’re arguing today like a member of an official Oppressed Minority Group. White people, you say, can’t be that dumb because we invented horseshoes, those tests don’t measure REAL intelligence anyway, and besides, our people were genetically sabotaged by a thousand years of “Middle Eastern crap.”
What’s the difference between that and African Americans who argue “we can’t be DAT dumb because brothers invented peanut butter and traffic lights AND dem tests don’t measure REAL intelligence anyhow AND besides the white man been keepin’ us DOWN, five hundred years of oppression, yo”?
My point is, who cares? When it comes to the qualities necessary to build a civilization that GOES SOMEWHERE, IQ is pretty far down the list. No society has EVER been run, except into the ground, by intellectuals. Intellectuals are servants and can’t succeed as anything else.
The true strength of our race is not our collective intellectual ability, measurable or not, but our faith, our passion, our sense of beauty, our sense of loyalty, honor and fair play, and our grateful curiosity about the world outside our own heads. In other words, our religious sense. That’s what makes us unique and gives our race its unique power.
I read in this morning’s newspaper that it has been recently discovered that even songbirds can do arithmetic and parse grammatical structures. So much for Noam Chomsky, who thinks that such abilities are what defines humanity. Let’s leave such extravagant overestimation of the ability to perform such tricks, which we share with animals, to the Noams of the world. It’s something we’re picking up from the “Judaized cultural imperium” (to use Kevin Macdonald’s phrase) in which we live, and we need to get over it.
#4 by Antonio Fini on 04/27/2006 - 6:32 pm
I’m not so sure about the disgenic impact of the churches Bob.
An ecclesiastical career was frowned upon for sons of noblemen who owned the land and fought the wars. Some of these families produced quite brilliant lineages which is how they stayed in power during the bloody mess that was European politics.
Many of the powerful churchmen were far from sterile- even after vows of chastity became the norm. The rennaisance popes in particular were quite prolific. They were criticized for handing out titles and land to their bastard offspring. Debauchery extended all the way down to the rural monastaries which were quite rich sophisticated compared to the surrounding countryside.
Come to think of it, maybe the monks and bishops who took their vow seriously were the nerdy type who seldom score anyway. We should be thankful the church gave them a stone bed in some freezing abbey so they could translate the lost classics from Arabic back into Latin.
It’s been pointed out that the engineers and computer geeks of today are the decendendants of the painters and craftsmen of the Rennaisance. Of course the the tech fields are overwhelmingly white. This gene pool seems to have survived more or less intact, even though it’s recently come under threat.
Maybe the White bell curve is ordered just the way it has to be. Too many geniuses would mean too frequent upheavals and revolutions. Not enough lumpen would mean nobody to sustain progress after the last revolution, until the next upheaval is required.
#5 by joe rorke on 04/27/2006 - 6:36 pm
Bob, I swear I think you are getting better by the minute. Here I thought you were devolving and it turns out you are evolving. Not bad for an old timer.
#6 by Shari on 04/27/2006 - 9:25 pm
Do you think that testable IQ has been skewed by the feminization of education? I remember being one of those “smart” little girls who learned to read quickly, was good at memorizing,etc. But after I grew up, I found out that I actually wasn’t very good at figuring things out. I’m impressed with Peter’s psychology professer doing what she did.